At this time another accusation
was concocted against Athanasius by the Arians, who invented this
pretext for it. The father of the Augusti had long before granted an
allowance of corn to the church of the Alexandrians for the relief of
the indigent. This, they asserted, had usually been sold by Athanasius,
and the proceeds converted to his own advantage. The emperor, giving
credence to this slanderous report, threatened Athanasius with death,
as a penalty; who, becoming alarmed at the intimation of this threat,
took to flight, and kept himself concealed. When Julius, bishop of
Rome, was apprised of these fresh machinations of the Arians against
Athanasius, and had also received the letter of the then deceased
Eusebius, he invited the persecuted Athanasius to come to him, having
ascertained where he was secreted. The epistle also of the bishops who
had been some time before assembled at Antioch, just then reached him;
and at the same time others from the bishops in Egypt, assuring him
that the entire charge against Athanasius was a fabrication. On the
receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to
the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the
acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them
with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his
attendance at the council,289289 Sozom. X. 3 follows Socrates. The contents of the
letter written by Julius to the Eusebians, found in Athanasius’
Apologia contra Arianos, c. 20, are different from those here
given by Socrates. Julius there complains of their ignoring his
invitation to the synod at Rome, but says nothing of any canon such as
is mentioned here. Cf. ch. 8, note 2.
seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should
pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then
censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to
pervert the faith; in addition, that their former proceedings at Tyre
were fraudulent, because the investigation of what had taken place at
Mareotes was on one side of the question only; not only this, but that
the charge respect44ing Arsenius had
plainly been proved a false charge. Such and similar sentiments did
Julius write in his answer to the bishops convened at Antioch; we
should have inserted here at length, these as well as those letters
which were addressed to Julius, did not their prolixity interfere with
our purpose. But Sabinus, the advocate of the Macedonian heresy, of
whom we have before spoken, has not incorporated the letters of Julius
in his Collection of Synodical Transactions;290290 See above, ch. 15.
although he has not omitted that which the bishops of Antioch sent to
Julius. This, however, is usual with him; he carefully introduces such
letters as make no reference to, or wholly repudiate the term
homoousion; while he purposely passes over in silence those of a
contrary tendency. This is sufficient on this subject. Not long after
this, Paul, pretending to make a journey from Thessalonica to Corinth,
arrived in Italy: upon which both the bishops291291 Athanasius and Paul.
made an appeal to the emperor of those parts, laying their respective
cases before him.

289 Sozom. X. 3 follows Socrates. The contents of the
letter written by Julius to the Eusebians, found in Athanasius’
Apologia contra Arianos, c. 20, are different from those here
given by Socrates. Julius there complains of their ignoring his
invitation to the synod at Rome, but says nothing of any canon such as
is mentioned here. Cf. ch. 8, note 2.